Review Queues

Review lanes built for legal work

Review Queues sits inside the wider Law Machines platform and gives attorneys, paralegals and operations teams a controlled place to sort documents as they arrive. Each item can be assigned to a queue, tagged by matter, marked for relevance, and moved along a review path that suits the firm’s internal process. That keeps document handling orderly when files are growing fast and several people need to work on the same matter.

The module is useful for litigation files, due diligence packs, deed-related bundles, commercial matters and any workflow where documents must be screened before they are used, shared or filed. You can separate first-pass review from secondary checks, then keep the follow-up actions tied to the same record. It helps reduce the mess that builds up in shared drives and scattered inboxes.

Queue sizes and working options

Review Queues is set up by matter volume and internal role, not by a fixed template. A small practice may run a handful of queues for intake, relevance checks and partner review, while a larger firm may split work across departments, locations or teams. The queue structure can be adjusted for high-volume evidence work or for quieter corporate files that need fewer handoffs.

• Single queue views for smaller teams and focused matters
• Multi-stage queues for intake, coding, review and follow-up
• Role-based views for attorneys, paralegals and admin staff
• Matter-linked filters for faster document sorting across active files
• Searchable queues for evidence, correspondence, pleadings and attachments

Firms in Sandton, Rosebank, Pretoria, Cape Town, Durban, Bloemfontein and Centurion often want slightly different queue structures, especially where one office handles intake and another handles review. The module can be arranged around those internal handovers without forcing everyone into the same pattern.

Where it fits in a South African firm

Review Queues suits law firms that need cleaner document control around fast-moving matters, POPIA-conscious record handling and repeatable review steps. It is practical for teams dealing with e-discovery requests, matter prep, document audits and evidence sorting where traceability matters. The aim is not to add another inbox, but to place each document into a defined stage with clear ownership.

It also works well where teams are split between Johannesburg and another office, or where support staff need to prepare bundles before attorneys step in. Because the queue structure is tied to matter records, people can see what has been reviewed, what still needs coding and where follow-up is still open.

• Litigation support and evidence review
• Corporate and commercial matter administration
• High-volume intake from scanning or uploads
• Cross-office review work with shared oversight

How the module is fitted into live workflows

Setting up Review Queues usually starts with the firm’s document categories, review stages and access rules. Our team maps the queue logic to your matter structure, then configures permissions so the right staff can view, move or sign off items without giving unnecessary access. That includes filtering by matter, document type, urgency and reviewer role.

Implementation often sits alongside template work, workflow configuration and permissions setup. If the firm is importing archived evidence or a large batch of matter files, queue rules can be linked to the import structure so documents land in the correct stage from the start. Secure hosting setup and incident response planning are relevant where a practice wants tighter controls around sensitive files, audit trails and access history.

• Queue stages matched to the firm’s existing review steps
• Access rights set by role or matter team
• Search tags for coding, relevance and follow-up status
• Optional links to evidence imports and document migration

Care, governance and day-to-day handling

Review Queues needs ordinary administrative care rather than constant rework. Teams should keep queue names consistent, retire old stages that are no longer used and check that matter labels remain accurate. Clean naming helps later searches, especially when several matters have similar parties or similar evidence sets. Small gaps in discipline can quickly turn a useful queue into another cluttered holding space.

For security and compliance, the module supports controlled access and traceable movement between review stages. That matters where confidential correspondence, personal information or sensitive matter material is being handled under general POPIA-aware practice. The point is to keep the record of who saw what, when they moved it and which stage followed next.

Details to confirm before the queue setup

Before a queue structure is configured, it helps to confirm the kinds of documents the firm handles most often, the number of review stages needed, and whether the work will be centralised or split across offices. That includes checking who can code, who can approve and which matters need restricted access. If the firm expects heavy evidence review, the queue design should allow for bulk handling without making the screen difficult to use.

It is also worth confirming the naming standard for matters, whether folder or tag logic already exists, and whether the review process must connect to templates, migration work or secure hosting settings. Those details keep the module aligned with the firm’s day-to-day process instead of forcing staff to adjust to a clumsy setup.

• Document types and review categories
• Number of queue stages required
• Role permissions and sign-off levels
• Matter naming rules and tagging logic
• Any migration, import or evidence load requirements